I know this is an odd topic for a 47-year-old man, apart from which it's going to be a bit of a whingeing session, so if you find that distasteful, you might want to browse elsewhere fora while. But it's a topic that's been growing on my mind now for a couple of years, and sometimes seems like it's been with me my whole life...
Nobody wants to play with me!
I don't mean that literally and 100 percent, of course. There are people who are *willing* to play with me, in some areas; even those who openly enjoy it. But there doesn't seem to really be anyone who actively seeks it out and, frankly, who'd rather play with me than with anyone else, or even than with most other people.
This extends into several different areas:
Online games -- I have friends I used to play in MMORPG's with, and even, very occasionally, still do. But I always seem to be the odd one, the spare tire -- welcome but not absolutely required. This really came home one night during a phase of my "World of Warcraft" career -- I was playing regularly, but most of my friends had dropped to playing only occasionally. So one night, after I hadn't had anyone to team with for a week, my friends all got on -- and formed a group that had no room for me. I had to log off and leave the house; I've rarely felt so utterly disregarded and abandoned.
These days, most of my online gaming is in City of Heroes. Most of my RL friends have moved away from it; one or two look in occasionally. I've been trying to find a supergroup ("guild" to veterans of other games) that I fit in with, and it just doesn't seem to happen. Either they're almost entirely inactive (at least during the time periods I'm on), or the people in them don't seem to really want to be active with one another (which makes me wonder why they're even in the group), or the group is centered around a small core of players and everyone else is window dressing. Finding the right balance of roleplaying and actual play seems to be impossible. I know the groups must be out there, but finding them and fitting in seems to be beyond me.
Other games -- my friends certainly haven't invited me to play "Rock Band" in some time. And ever since "Rock Band" came out, no one wants to play "Karaoke Revolution" at all...
Crossdressing -- OK, my gender issues aren't really a "game" per se. It's something important to me in a number of ways. But there are ways in which I'd like to "play" with it. I'd like to find a costuming partner, someone who would enjoy making matching or compatible costumes and wearing them and acting to some degree in character at places like SF conventions and renaissance faires. I'd like to find a sister or best girlfriend who I could confide in and hang out with, and be there for. I'd like the chance to find someone who understands and is sympathetic to the fact that there are a lot of things I'd still find exciting about being a girl that most adult women have grown out of, or at least come to take for granted.
Kinky games -- I won't go into too much detail here, but lord knows I can't find a partner interested in trying out some kinky things with me, exploring fetishes and roles and games that I find intensely attractive. I know of some places to contact people who are theoretically into it, but either they just seem to have a very different mindset about it, or they want to play -- but again, not with *me*.
And combining the above areas, I certainly couldn't seem to find any person or group I fit in with in Second Life...
I don't know. It just seems to me that, either no one wants to play, or they don't want to play the same games I want to play -- or they just don't see me as someone worth playing with.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
2009
Well, the schedule of events is looking good so far....
January 20th: Barack Obama takes office.
February 10th: New Christopher Moore book to be released.
March 6th: Watchmen film to open on time.
Yep, just keeps getting better!
January 20th: Barack Obama takes office.
February 10th: New Christopher Moore book to be released.
March 6th: Watchmen film to open on time.
Yep, just keeps getting better!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
More Ann Coulter!
The folks over at Media Matters are calling for people to complain to NBC that they are, once again, helping Ann Coulter sell books. She appears often on MSNBC and Fox News -- that's not so surprising; her name attracts viewers, to applaud or despise, and they have 24 hours a day to fill with something. Controversy is their lifeblood, along with pretty missing white girls. But they are outraged that Ann is scheduled to appear on the Today show on January 6th. "Enough is enough!" they say.
I disagree. I say we should have Coulter on the air as often as possible.
Let's face it -- if pressure from "the left" causes networks to stop giving her airtime, it will only give her and her cohorts more proof that liberals control the media, and are hypocritical for saying they support free speech while suppressing conservative opinions.
No, I think a better tactic is to give Ann Coulter plenty of airtime. Let her on every show she wants to be on. Make hers the visible face of right-wing America. Sure, she'll sell a few more books. But meanwhile, people will get to hear her as she calls Al Gore a "total fag," says that women's suffrage "explains the destruction of America," calls for feeding rat poison to Supreme Court Justices, blowing up the New York Times and invading Muslim countries to convert them to Christianity, likens Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler, say that Hillary Clinton would enjoy torturing detainees in Guantanamo, that Jews believe Jesus was a "raving lunatic," and more ridiculous and outrageous comments than I have time to list if I spent all of 2009 at it. Keep her on and talking, and make sure to splash "conservative" all over her -- until finally, actual reasonable conservatives rise up and say, "For God's sake, stop letting this woman speak for us! Shut up, Ann! SHUT UP!"
You know it's pretty bad when, compared to this woman, Pat Buchanan seems like the voice of reason itself.
I disagree. I say we should have Coulter on the air as often as possible.
Let's face it -- if pressure from "the left" causes networks to stop giving her airtime, it will only give her and her cohorts more proof that liberals control the media, and are hypocritical for saying they support free speech while suppressing conservative opinions.
No, I think a better tactic is to give Ann Coulter plenty of airtime. Let her on every show she wants to be on. Make hers the visible face of right-wing America. Sure, she'll sell a few more books. But meanwhile, people will get to hear her as she calls Al Gore a "total fag," says that women's suffrage "explains the destruction of America," calls for feeding rat poison to Supreme Court Justices, blowing up the New York Times and invading Muslim countries to convert them to Christianity, likens Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler, say that Hillary Clinton would enjoy torturing detainees in Guantanamo, that Jews believe Jesus was a "raving lunatic," and more ridiculous and outrageous comments than I have time to list if I spent all of 2009 at it. Keep her on and talking, and make sure to splash "conservative" all over her -- until finally, actual reasonable conservatives rise up and say, "For God's sake, stop letting this woman speak for us! Shut up, Ann! SHUT UP!"
You know it's pretty bad when, compared to this woman, Pat Buchanan seems like the voice of reason itself.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Drip, drip, drip
Went out and voted around 9:00 AM. The polling place was busy, but there were no lines, which is good since they would be out in the rain. I expect there will be lines later, and the rain is probably going to be sporadic all day, so I hope it doesn't affect turnout. Not that I would expect Obama to lose California -- if the polls are that far off, the election will be over long before it gets to us -- but it could affect the vote for Prop 8 and other state and local issues.
I've never stood in line to vote for more than a few minutes, myself -- California, or at least the areas I've lived, seems to be good in this respect -- so when I see hours-long lines in other states, I'm always a little astonished. I'm glad we have people who are determined enough to vote in these states.
I've never stood in line to vote for more than a few minutes, myself -- California, or at least the areas I've lived, seems to be good in this respect -- so when I see hours-long lines in other states, I'm always a little astonished. I'm glad we have people who are determined enough to vote in these states.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Prop 8
I've been doing a lot of work up in Orange County, particularly in Santa Ana, the last few weeks. Orange County is one of California's more conservative areas, and the area where I've been working is very heavily Latino (and therefore heavily Catholic). So it's hard to look far there without seeing a "Yes on 8" bumper sticker or yard sign. On a few days, there were groups out on street corners waving pro-8 signs.
It was gratifying today, therefore, to see a group on a corner of Bristol Street near the 405 freeway waving "No on 8" signs -- and even more gratifying to hear the many honks of support they were getting from passing cars. It made me feel a bit better about the prospects for Tuesday.
For those who may not know, Proposition 8 is the measure that would amend California's state constitution to restrict marriage to a union between a man and a woman. It's a response to last spring's decision by the state's Supreme Court that laws against such unions violated the California constitution. Since then, an estimate 16,000 same-sex couples have legally tied the knot in the state. Proposition 8, amongst other thing, would throw them into a legal limbo as the courts try to decide whether their marriages could be nullified retroactively.
Even if I had reservations about gay marriage, I have to say that the Yes-on-8 crowd would probably have driving me to a No vote. The signs they were waving made me crazy. "Yes on 8 = Freedom of Religion." ....uh, what? Something is against your religion, so other people can't do it? Wouldn't that be like someone saying, "I'm Jewish, so you can't eat pork"? There are countries which work that way, but they don't have freedom of religion. No one is going to be forced to marry a member of the same sex -- if doing so is against your religion, then don't do it. Seems simple enough.
Now, if the courts specified that churches had to perform and recognize same-sex marriages, that would be quite another thing. But it doesn't. Churches, AFAIK, are free to set their own standards on what marriages they recognize. But the law ought to be the same for everyone.
"Yes on 8 = Free Speech." Say what? Look, just because same sex marriage might be legal doesn't mean you have to like it -- or that you can't express your disapproval. Smoking cigarettes is legal, but that certainly doesn't stop me from saying I think doing so is idiotic. Pre-marital and extra-marital sex are not illegal, but they are certainly frowned upon by most churches and even many non-religious people; they haven't had to take "Thou shalt not commit adultery" out of the Bible yet.
I recognize that many religious people genuinely feel that same-sex marriage violates God's will. But last I checked, God didn't think much of liars, either. And these tactics are at the very least a distraction from the real issue.
I also strongly feel that for many people, religion is merely the excuse to legitimize their homophobia. I don't see groups out there trying to get laws passed against adultery and fornication -- and Jesus talked about those sins often, while he never mentioned homosexuality in any Gospel I've heard of. (I also know some very religious people who are not at all homophobic, some of whom are genuinely conflicted over the issue of same-sex marriage.)
As for me -- well, as I understand it, at least some churches take the position that simply being gay isn't in itself sinful -- but acting on it is. These people, I think should fully support gay marriage -- since everyone knows that once couples are married, they have much less sex. :)
It was gratifying today, therefore, to see a group on a corner of Bristol Street near the 405 freeway waving "No on 8" signs -- and even more gratifying to hear the many honks of support they were getting from passing cars. It made me feel a bit better about the prospects for Tuesday.
For those who may not know, Proposition 8 is the measure that would amend California's state constitution to restrict marriage to a union between a man and a woman. It's a response to last spring's decision by the state's Supreme Court that laws against such unions violated the California constitution. Since then, an estimate 16,000 same-sex couples have legally tied the knot in the state. Proposition 8, amongst other thing, would throw them into a legal limbo as the courts try to decide whether their marriages could be nullified retroactively.
Even if I had reservations about gay marriage, I have to say that the Yes-on-8 crowd would probably have driving me to a No vote. The signs they were waving made me crazy. "Yes on 8 = Freedom of Religion." ....uh, what? Something is against your religion, so other people can't do it? Wouldn't that be like someone saying, "I'm Jewish, so you can't eat pork"? There are countries which work that way, but they don't have freedom of religion. No one is going to be forced to marry a member of the same sex -- if doing so is against your religion, then don't do it. Seems simple enough.
Now, if the courts specified that churches had to perform and recognize same-sex marriages, that would be quite another thing. But it doesn't. Churches, AFAIK, are free to set their own standards on what marriages they recognize. But the law ought to be the same for everyone.
"Yes on 8 = Free Speech." Say what? Look, just because same sex marriage might be legal doesn't mean you have to like it -- or that you can't express your disapproval. Smoking cigarettes is legal, but that certainly doesn't stop me from saying I think doing so is idiotic. Pre-marital and extra-marital sex are not illegal, but they are certainly frowned upon by most churches and even many non-religious people; they haven't had to take "Thou shalt not commit adultery" out of the Bible yet.
I recognize that many religious people genuinely feel that same-sex marriage violates God's will. But last I checked, God didn't think much of liars, either. And these tactics are at the very least a distraction from the real issue.
I also strongly feel that for many people, religion is merely the excuse to legitimize their homophobia. I don't see groups out there trying to get laws passed against adultery and fornication -- and Jesus talked about those sins often, while he never mentioned homosexuality in any Gospel I've heard of. (I also know some very religious people who are not at all homophobic, some of whom are genuinely conflicted over the issue of same-sex marriage.)
As for me -- well, as I understand it, at least some churches take the position that simply being gay isn't in itself sinful -- but acting on it is. These people, I think should fully support gay marriage -- since everyone knows that once couples are married, they have much less sex. :)